Tennis 2017
- Thread starter The Man Himself
- Start date
- Status
All the great players say the French is the most difficult to win.
Becker, Connors, McEnroe, Federer, Djokovic and Sampras have a combined total of two french opens. That's six of the greatest ever players.
Its only the most difficult for non-clay court specialists. Many of the players you cited came up on hard courts and naturally gravitated towards grass due to the similarities of how the ball bounces on hard and grass, which is quite different from clay.
It's not overly ridiculous to suggest at all, the French is barely above the Australian in terms of prestige, and that was a non-factor for a solid 20 years. The season never used to truly start until Wimbledon...I'd say most of the names above who never won or even did well at the French would of done slightly better if allure of it was similar to what it is today. Ditto the Aussie, Borg, Mac and Connors definitely have a few more slams to their name anyway, and Connors very very likely would of won a Grand Slam.
Pat Cash, Goran and Krajicek are minor Tennis celebs, who even remembers half of the the one time Aussie/French winners? You can more or less thank Roger for making them both mainstream tournaments and everyone being all-court specialists.
Pat Cash, Goran and Krajicek are minor Tennis celebs, who even remembers half of the the one time Aussie/French winners? You can more or less thank Roger for making them both mainstream tournaments and everyone being all-court specialists.
The French Open is easily more prestigious than the US or Australian Open.
It really isn't above the US. But because the US has no players at the moment and the French has been the location for two of the three sets being completed recently(3 if you count Agassi's too) as well Rafa's historic run....then well yeah, maybe at the moment. But in the grand scheme of Tennis history, it's not even close.
I think a lot of Federer fans like to discount the French Open because well he kind of got destroyed there by Rafa time and again. For me, every Slam will be of equal importance. US, Australia, Wimbledon or the French. The clay is a solid 2-3 month season and follows hard courts as the most played surface. Grass has two tournaments where the serve bots get their chance to try move up the draws by raining down aces. It's a great tournament because of the prestige that goes with it but end of the day, it's just as important as any other Slam to me.
Thank Federer for making French Open mainstream? All he's done is evoke public sympathy for constantly getting pummeled on the surface. I think it's a great surface and extremely difficult to win on. A rubbish serve bot like Roddick has come close to multiple Wimbledon slam titles only because he can hit aces and he was a non entity on clay. Federer and Djoko are exceptional clay court players who got unlucky to be playing in the Rafa era.
I think if you gave most players just about any slam they'd bite your hands off. Andy Murray would be more than happy to win Australia than another Wimbledon or a first French imo.
Nadal cementing his legacy as the GOAT
That's nonsense about their being no allure to it. It's a grandslam not a 250 event.
Do you think Sampras if he tried harder would have won the french? No. Same goes for Connors, McEnroe and Becker. Their game style didn't suit it.
Nadals style didn't suit Wimbledon. But he adapted and won it twice.
This. If Nadal wasn't around and Fed had around 6 RG titles to his name, I doubt people would talk the same way about RG. The truth is that Nadal managed to adapt his game to even beat the GOAT on grass at his home. Federer has never even come close to beating Nadal at RG despite his clay game being far better than Nadal's grass game. The French is a great tournament, just like any other Slam.
I think it would be unfair to label Roddick as rubbish, although he was most definitely very limited in his playing style. And in addition, serve-bots are fairly poor to watch as their skill-sets can be very limited but you can't afford to forget that for every serve-bot on the tour, there's also a "brainless ball-smashing" power-baseliner who has a very limited all-court game.
You make some good points here. The French was always generally the crown jewel for clay court specialists, although I may disagree a bit on when the season started. For me it was always around the RG was played since it sort of marked the end of European clay court season.
There was also always a percolating perception, especially in the 90s, that a lot of European and South Americans would rack up ridiculous tour points on Clay then proceed to flounder on other surfaces despite being ranked higher than the hard courters. The likes of Muster, Bruguera, Gaudio, Guga Kuerten, Moya etc spring to mind.
"Rubbish" might be a bit harsh but he's definitely one of the worst Number 2's I've watched. I'd kill for an era for Nadal with Roddick as his greatest competitor
The fact remains though that even with his supremely limited game, he got to Slam finals and lost. There aren't that many serve bots anymore but the ones that exist, can't get a look in on clay because their only weapon doesn't work there.Nadal has definitely helped changed that perception about Spaniards though. Also him, Federer and Djoko are all quality players on clay who are great on all surfaces.
Yeah Rafa is not in the category of the players I listed. His game obviously transcends just Clay as he's been successful on all surfaces
"Rubbish" might be a bit harsh but he's definitely one of the worst Number 2's I've watched. I'd kill for an era for Nadal with Roddick as his greatest competitor
Roger Federer (Champion)
Andy Roddick (Finalist)
Guillermo Coria (Second round)- David Nalbandian (withdrew)
Tim Henman (Quarterfinalist)
Juan Carlos Ferrero (Third round)
Lleyton Hewitt (Quarterfinalist)
Rainer Schüttler (Third round)- Carlos Moyà (Fourth round)
Sébastien Grosjean (Semifinalist)- Mark Philippoussis (Fourth round)
Sjeng Schalken (Quarterfinalist)
Paradorn Srichaphan (First round)- Mardy Fish (Second round)
Nicolás Massú (First round)
Jiří Novák (First round)
Jonas Björkman (Third round)- Feliciano López (Third round)
Marat Safin (First round)- Tommy Robredo (Second round)
You're right about the lack of quality ofcourse but someone who can hit that many aces on a surface like grass will always be a good bet to make the quarters atleast. Even players like Raonic and Berdych have made Wimbledon finals because they know how to serve really well.This is the top 20 seeds of the 2004 Wimbledon Men's Singles. The main reason why Roddick advanced to the final was because of a lack of quality in the draw (Other than Federer and arguably Safin), not purely because he was a serve-bot.
PS: That list of seeds is shockingly bad
4 of those Top 10 might as well not turn up on grass and the others are jokes in comparison to the standards set today. Have to feel bad for Djoko and Murray especially seeing what they have to do to win today compared to the dross around in the whole pre Nadal era.TBF, I wouldn't exactly say that the standard of the Top 32 right now is great either. The two best players on Tour this season have been Federer and Nadal and being honest, I'd say that the gap between them and 3rd best player on Tour this year is very large. Djokovic and Murray have really under-performed and worse, it seems that no young player is about to make the breakthrough. Dimitrov is already 26 and Nishikori is going to be 28 later this year, and neither of the two are regular contenders at Grand Slams. If it wasn't for Zverev and Kyrgios, the scene would look even bleaker. All in all, I don't really feel that Djokovic and Murray face really tough opponents, certainly not vis-à-vis Roddick's 2004 counterparts.PS: That list of seeds is shockingly bad
The rise of Federer and a couple years later Nadal, really did rescue Tennis and take into an even higher level than ever before. Prior to Roger's Wimbledon win, Tennis was dealing with the end of Sampras/Agassi and various stragglers like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero et al. If not for Roger and Rafa, Tennis would've floundered for about 6 or more years til Djokovic made it to the top.
Djoko and Murray being this poor is an anomaly though. This time last year, Djoko held all 4 Slams. The field outside the Top 4 might not be great but it's just an incredibly tough era to win a Slam in. Nadal and Djoko have managed it well enough being up against Federer but you feel a bit for Murray. If he'd come around 3-4 years earlier, he'd be at around 4-6 Slams probably.
I just don't see anyone good enough from the Next gen to see how it's going to improve much once these 3 are done. Even now Fed and Nadal are dominating the tour and the "kids" aren't winning Slams early like Rafa did. Maybe there's some hope for the likes of Thiem and Zyerev but it just looks a very poor field once these 3 do retire/fade away.
All sports are cyclical. It's so extraordinarily rare to have three guys - all of whom have valid arguments to be considered the GOAT - competing at the same time and, more than that, playing somewhere close to their peaks. And that's without even taking into account the increasing of the odds of it happening in an individual rather than team sport.
As much as Fed/Rafa/Djoko coming along at the same time and reaching the heights they have was brought about by the increased competition each of those guys brought to bear on each other, it's also just one of those oddities that throws itself up now and then. Comparing across generations using some sort of absolute standard is so extraordinarily difficult and, let's be honest, prone to revisionism.
it's conceivable that we won't see anyone of their quality come through for 10-20 years. If even. I'm not sure the current crop are necessarily that bad, they're just nowhere close to what we've been seeing the last decade. I could live with being poor if I hadn't been rich...and all that. These are guys who will leave their mark on the sport for generations. Much like Messi and Ronaldo. In almost every way, they're the outliers, not the other 99.999999% of guys. Which makes any comparison between them and their potential successors particularly harsh.
That "rubbish" player Roddick beat Nadal 3 times including 29 years old Roddick beating him in Miami SF's in 2010 when Nadal won 3 slams - a feat he was unable to repeat to date."Rubbish" might be a bit harsh but he's definitely one of the worst Number 2's I've watched. I'd kill for an era for Nadal with Roddick as his greatest competitor
Same rubbish Roddick has leading h2h with Djokovic beating him 4 times in a row in 2009/2010 including at the AO.
A guy with such a limited game made it to 5 slam finals winning 1 of them along with 5 other SF's on three different slam surfaces, won 32 ATP titles on 4 surfaces (Hard, Grass, Clay and Carpet) and was 13 weeks number one only to be overcome by a certain GOAT in Federer.
But let not that get in the way of your bashing.
Murray and Djokovic dominating wasn't really a surprise. They had Wawrinka and washed up Federer/Nadal in the last 2 years prior to this. The field is certainly worse than what it was 10-15 years ago.
Murray is hands down the worst #1 since probably Moya and Rios. He is shockingly bad this year with 2 wins over top ten opponents - Berdych in Doha and Nishikori who sucks a bit on clay at the RG, while losing to journeymen in masters and slams..
Nice solid attempt at a sensationalist reply to downplay what I said. I didn't say it was the equivalent of a 250, but below Wimbledon and the US, which it is, and most certainly massively was. The bloody tour end championship was more of a slam than the Aussie Open for a long time.
And again, did I say Sampras would win, lets check it...oh no, look at that "would of done slightly better". Which I stick to, people today go completely out of their way to improve their clay game, and it's paid off for a lot.....
Its not even up for debate that Wimbledon is the most prestigious of Slams. Back in the old days pros used to ditch the AO quite a lot as well.
Nadal's fans are getting very defensive for no reason. Of course he's the greatest clay courter of all time, even before this win, that however doesnt change the fact that in the eyes of most professional players and followers of the sport that Wimbledon and arguably the USO have more allure as a tournament.
Nadal's fans are getting very defensive for no reason. Of course he's the greatest clay courter of all time, even before this win, that however doesnt change the fact that in the eyes of most professional players and followers of the sport that Wimbledon and arguably the USO have more allure as a tournament.
We're not the ones who came on here to say RG is worth more than any other Slam.
Do you even know the definition of 'defensive'?
You can think of Nadal as the best ever, the greatest ever and I respect that, it's your opinion. However, most people will still rank Federer higher and that's just the way it is. Same with this debate, you can value the RG just as much or more than other Slams, but the Wimbledon is still held in higher regard in the eyes of most people and stating that obvious consensus is not an attempt to smear Nadal's record.
But it's .... the truth? And you ARE getting overly defensive about it. It has absolutely nothing to do with Nadal, Djokovic, Federer etc etc, it's a simply truth of tennis history. Those three at least play in an era when it is highly highly regarded. But you can't really compare Connors or others from previous generations who skipped it in his peak etc, or others who simply didn't feel it was worth the hassle to go out of their way to massively focus training for it like Djokovic and Murray have done. Among others who have massive
It's even worse for the Australian, given players who would of easily won it, skipped it relentlessly. Agassi skipped it for like half his career, and yet it's still his most successful slam.
Then Federer came along, and all of a sudden both are getting similar coverage to the Wimbledon/US because of his all-court allure....yes you can thank him. And then the rest for following suit in taking them all seriously, because they had to, to beat him. The Safin-Fed and Nadal-Fed semis in 2004/5 put both on the map.
Do YOU genuinely remember Thomas Johansson's win? or Gaudio's(all I remember that year for is Henman oddly making the semi)? or either of Kafelnikovs? I doubt it. Though some die hards and locals will of course, but for worldwide attention...not really.
It's even worse for the Australian, given players who would of easily won it, skipped it relentlessly. Agassi skipped it for like half his career, and yet it's still his most successful slam.
Then Federer came along, and all of a sudden both are getting similar coverage to the Wimbledon/US because of his all-court allure....yes you can thank him. And then the rest for following suit in taking them all seriously, because they had to, to beat him. The Safin-Fed and Nadal-Fed semis in 2004/5 put both on the map.
Do YOU genuinely remember Thomas Johansson's win? or Gaudio's(all I remember that year for is Henman oddly making the semi)? or either of Kafelnikovs? I doubt it. Though some die hards and locals will of course, but for worldwide attention...not really.
like EPL, Wimbledon is a bit overhyped too because England suck at sports so at least they do their best on presentation part. apparently it works, given that some people are actually buying that "most prestigious GS" thing, in the same way they buy "the most prestigious league" thing.
also, it's funny seeing Federer fanboys downplaying Nadal's victories because they don't think clay tournaments are as important as those on grass
. Nadal beat prime Fed on his court - Federer was never good enough to do the same. Nadal has nothing to prove to anyone.
also, it's funny seeing Federer fanboys downplaying Nadal's victories because they don't think clay tournaments are as important as those on grass
. Nadal beat prime Fed on his court - Federer was never good enough to do the same. Nadal has nothing to prove to anyone.It's nothing to do with us "sucking at sport", which to be fair is utter bollocks as in recent years we've been very good at countless sports outside of football. It's more because it's the oldest tennis tournament that they play in and it has a tradition of all the greatest players wanting to win it.
I wouldn't say it's worth more in terms of deciding which player is better, but it's prestigiousness is unrivelled by the other tournaments.
Players would jump at the chance to win any major but if you offered them the choice you can bet they'd choose Wimbledon.
I can still accept that. It might be the more prestigious Slam but at the end of the day, every Slam has the same value when you sit down to count how many Slams every player has.
Djoko has dominated even when Nadal was at his peak and Federer at a very very good level. He's destroyed peak Nadal in consecutive finals and defeated Fed many times. Funnily enough, Djoko is struggling right now when the field is actually pretty weak for once.
and the same can't be said for other GS's? all those players don't really wan't to win other slams becase they are couple of years "younger" than Wimbledon? interesting theory.
I agree that if I could win one slam only, Wimbledon would be it.
In terms of comparing slams though I don't see it as a major thing. Say comparing Murray and Stan, I'd have Murray ahead of Stan simply for his consistency rather than because he's got 2 Wimbledon's and Stan has 0.
In terms of comparing slams though I don't see it as a major thing. Say comparing Murray and Stan, I'd have Murray ahead of Stan simply for his consistency rather than because he's got 2 Wimbledon's and Stan has 0.
He was number 1 by default till Federer properly took over the rankings. It was pretty much just him challenging Fed for a good while. Like I said, "rubbish" might have been harsh but he's the most limited #2 I've seen in ages. Over the last 8-10 years you've had Federer, Murray Djoko and Nadal be the #2 in the world. Compare them to Roddick. Also, 21 of his 32 titles are ATP 250 titles and 5 of them ATP 500 so yeah, if you look deeper into the stats, it's nothing really great.
Roddick isn't any stronger than Berdych or Raonic. he would suffer the same fate as they did if he was competing during the last couple of years.
Absolutely. He'd have been completely irrelevant in this current era. Like Berdych and Raonic, he also might have come close to a Wimbledon title purely because of his serve but he'd be no challenge to the Big 4.
I'm not saying they don't really want to win the others at all, I just said given the choice they would likely choose Wimbledon because of the history and tradition that comes with it. It's the "home" of tennis so to speak and when pros talk of their childhood it's often the one they say they dreamed of winning.
But again in terms of difficulty to win, in modern times when the top players are all playing at all 4 majors I wouldn't put more value on it in terms of judging how good a player is.
I suppose you could make a case for someone who say won a bunch of slams on clay but never competing elsewhere needing some other slams to bring themselves into the conversation, but seeing as Nadal has proven he has the goods on other surfaces that's not a criticism you can level at him.
- Status